>The whole subject of this debate is that the goal of Bitcoin and the roadmap for >Bitcoin is being altered by a bunch of people who came to Bitcoin much more >recently than myself.

nopara73

The whole subject of this debate is how to scale Bitcoin.

There would not be any debate if the roadmap of Bitcoin was the same setup by Satoshi. The reason people like Roger Ver and me (and many others) joined up was exactly because we were captured by Satoshi idea of a decentralized electronic cash network. Not digital gold, not store of value, no settlement system, no $100 fees.

$ 100 fee

The Core developers changed the goals of the project, ostracized every dissenter and kicked out every opposition then formed Blockstream and started to push solutions useful to Blockstream and their own pockets.

Roger made the point about the high fee at 09:40 and Vays confirmed he don’t have a problem with 100$ fees at 11:30. Sure Vays put a few caveats in like “if we don’t scale”, “if the status quo remain”. Wake up, the status quo never remain. Not today, not in a competitive market like the cryptocurrencies.

You either disrupt the market with innovation or the market will disrupt you with innovation. Status quo is for statists.

GitHub commits

Then nopara73 go on showing a chart with GIT commit for Unlimited and Core. Like quantity and quality are the same thing. Who benefit from this quality and quantity? Today the users do not benefit from all these quality & quantity upgrades. The only quality I can appreciate is xThin Blocks introduced by Unlimited halving the quantity of data and time my node require to synchronize with the network.

Then a true but totally misleading part about Satoshi not really leaving Bitcoin project to Gavin but Gavin making him running from the project when he tell Satoshi he was invited by the CIA to talk about Bitcoin. And Satoshi never having a GitHub account.

Satoshi gave Gavin Andresen the Emergency Alert key to the network. The Core Team removed it from Bitcoin Core years later after kicking him out and removing his access to the GitHub. They took away Gavin access to GitHub with the excuse of “hacking” and when they cleared it they never gave it back.

About the censorship on Reddit:

“ No Bitcoin Core developer is currently /r/Bitcoin moderator. Many of them don’t even have a Reddit account.”

is not a good excuse for not denouncing and condemning it.

The first thing good people do with a toxic supporter is to distance themselves from them. If you don’t, no matter what, you tacitly support him and his actions in the matter.

The Ethereum hard fork?

Ethereum showed a hard fork to change the ledger. And it survived it, both Ethereum and Ethereum Classic survived and are performing well. They are both not dead. The market saw value in both of them.

Bitcoin would not fork to change the ledger past, just to increase capacity in the future as miner feel fit and the market is ready to pay. Would the market see value in both of them? I doubt it; but the market decide, not me. Not any expert.

Then the wallets and SegWit.

Most wallets are probably integrating SegWit at the slowest pace possible and as an insurance policy, not because they like it. Why? Because Bitcoin Core developers are threatening to activate SegWit in November 2017 with or without the 95% majority of the blocks in a retargeting period.

BTW, without a clear majority, and they have just less 30% of blocks now, the risk of activating an Hard Fork is very big. Then all the SegWit ANYONECANSPEND transactions will become spendable for the nodes not activating SegWit. And the money of people using SegWit will be in jeopardy.

Now, what branch will Coinbase follow? BitPay? The miners will go along and fold or will reject this threat?

I’m a huge supporter of Bitcoin for years and I’m on the verge of starting to diversify in other cryptocurrencies because this deadlock. If Core had their way, I’m surely out.